Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added)

This is a discussion on Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by GeorgiaDawg
The sign is reasonable notice. It's a warning that if you are caught with a firearm on the property, you will ...

The sign is reasonable notice. It's a warning that if you are caught with a firearm on the property, you will be asked to leave or be arrested for trespassing.

I don't think signs should have the force of law because business owners already have the ability to deny services and ask patrons to leave for violating their rules. I don't think it's necessary to add a criminal charge to someone who hasn't first been personally asked to leave by a representative of the business. Trespassing is a valid offense that can be applied to an individual who does not leave once asked, so I believe additional "force" to be unjustified. The ability to remove someone from their property is the power for a business to operate as they wish, at least in regard to the expectations of their customers.

As a property owner, be it home or private business, I would expect any posting to be honored as the law of my business and act as my word. If I don't want guns, than I don't want them. Not, I don't want to catch you with a gun on my property should you choose to ignore it. That's not really honoring my rights as a private property owner....it's a "surface" solution.

I am starting to feel like an anti-gun person with all my defenses of private property rights, LOL. Understand that I do not support businesses who make the choice to post, but I do respect their rights to do as they choose on their own property and believe it should be honored. If it's not honored than I couldn't legitimately expect anyone to honor my rules in my own home.

I feel that a place of bussines should not abide by the same law as a mans castle, you have strangers coming in and out all the time that alone poses danger to everyone and anyone. Unlike your home, strangers are not allowed , your place of bussines strangers are allowed, so everyone needs to watch for themselves. So the owner should have no say so to this matter and allow custumers to bear arm period.....Eddie.

So the store owner has no rights at all? Does that mean that he/she has no right to protest when people start walking out the door with merchandise without paying?

Does that mean that the police can search the business any time they please - no warrant, no probable cause? Can I walk in and start selling my products on his/her property without their permission?

What about the thug who comes in with a hammer and shotgun and starts smashing the display cases and threatening the employees? The owner has no right to fight back?

The First Amendment has been through the courts nearly every way imaginable. There can’t be many who feel that it is of less importance than the Second Amendment, so I will use it, instead.

Let me preface by stating that I am not a lawyer, so this is a layman’s take on the subject. Alright, here we go.

Let us say that I own a business with a store front, open to the public. Let us also say that you and a group of like-minded associates do not approve of my choice of interior paint, say light purple with lime-green trim. You are so offended, morally outraged even, that you and your associates decide to exercise your First Amendment right to protest this.

You are well within your rights as freedom of speech and assembly is well established. You all walk in to my store, stand in the middle of the sales floor and give impassioned speeches and wave signs over your heads. At which point I ask you to leave the premises immediately. When you refuse to leave, I call the police and have you cited for trespass.

If you had simply chosen to stage your protest on the public easement instead of ON my property, there would have been very little I could have done. But, since you chose to protest on my property, my property rights superseded your speech and assembly rights. This is, I believe, based on the concept that a man’s home/business is his castle (as in those wonderful castle laws we all hold so dear).

Remember the old saying, “Your rights end at the tip of my nose.”? Property rights can, and have been, constrained by law and regulation that is deemed in the public good – zoning regulations, health codes and racial discrimination laws come to mind – but we are still the king/queen of our individual castles. Just because you want to look at the art I have in my home does not give you the right to enter without my permission. For that matter, not even the police can legally enter my home without either probable cause or a warrant.

If I remember my history lessons, property rights were right up there with “taxation without representation” to the Founders. In fact, wasn’t it one of the reasons we went to war way back then?

While light purple interior paint with lime-green trim is terribly offensive, how does a lawfully carried concealed gun disrupt your business in any way?

Raodrunner71 your mixing apples with oranges here !! The wner runs his business the way and only way it is intended, its his business, but when it comes to our safety(the consumer) we should have the right to protect our selves when a bad situation occures in a place where doors are open to the public where people are free to walk in and out at will. I said nothing about taking over the store and do what u please. The owner has rules to run his business yes we must abide to those rules, but not how to protect ourselves in a life and death situation !!!!! .......... I take it that your a store owner, if you are than I understand, if not I hope you understood what im trying to say(maybe).

Raodrunner71 your mixing apples with oranges here !! The wner runs his business the way and only way it is intended, its his business, but when it comes to our safety(the consumer) we should have the right to protect our selves when a bad situation occures in a place where doors are open to the public where people are free to walk in and out at will. I said nothing about taking over the store and do what u please. The owner has rules to run his business yes we must abide to those rules, but not how to protect ourselves in a life and death situation !!!!! .......... I take it that your a store owner, if you are than I understand, if not I hope you understood what im trying to say(maybe).

You do have the right to protect yourself; don't go on their property and you won't be exposed to the potentially dangerous situation. If you choose to enter their property, however, you are subject to their rules.

You do have the right to protect yourself; don't go on their property and you won't be exposed to the potentially dangerous situation. If you choose to enter their property, however, you are subject to their rules.

Business owners have no right to maintain such "dangerous situations". 'Public health and safety' FTW.

At least we agree that arbitrary gun-free zones are public hazards. That's progress.

For the sake of brevity I'm going to answer all your questions as one.

The short answer is no, that's not infringement. You don't have to go into any business or on anyone else's property. You choose to go and therefore you choose to forego certain rights. Property rights of a business or individual trump your Second Amendment rights because nobody can compel you onto that property. If you don't like their private property rules, then don't enter their private property. It's that simple.

TX expat,

I appreciate your brevity, which by the way is not one of my strong points. Thank you for your explanation and for summing it up so well. This is the way I have been leaning but I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt this way when I am also very pro 2nd amendment.

Now for my next questions:

Hypothetical...What happens if all the stores that sell food to the public decide to ban firearms? Does the property owner's Right which restricting one's access to the modern day food source still trump the 2nd amendment? In this situation it seems like the person who carries a gun must choose to relinquish their 2nd amendment Rights in order to continue to live (assuming they can't hunt or grow a large enough garden where they live).

I appreciate your brevity, which by the way is not one of my strong points. Thank you for your explanation and for summing it up so well. This is the way I have been leaning but I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt this way when I am also very pro 2nd amendment.

Now for my next questions:

Hypothetical...What happens if all the stores that sell food to the public decide to ban firearms? Does the property owner's Right which restricting one's access to the modern day food source still trump the 2nd amendment? In this situation it seems like the person who carries a gun must choose to relinquish their 2nd amendment Rights in order to continue to live (assuming they can't hunt or grow a large enough garden where they live).

You as a person and your values and beleifs are still not being denied access to any facility. They are not allowing a tool, a device, a piece of equipment. It still is the same.

Tx expat bad guys dont obey laws and rules !! We need to be aware of this and prepared. When I go to the store I go with no intentions of starting a gun fight, the whole purpose of getting cc liscense is to protect myself , if all stores were to post such signs and we had to leave our weapons in the car all the time it will defeat all purposes of even owning, carrying, and protecting. Bad guys dont play by the rules, this is the reason why the good samaritan always lose...Eddie.

I think whomever it is that pays the property taxes or the rent to keep an establishment open so that I may purchase goods from them instead of having to spend my time and money searching elsewhere owes me precisely nothing. They can make any rules they want and I can agree to them, or I can take my money elsewhere. I have yet to find a store in my area that stocks anything I use that I can't get elsewhere.

Hypothetical...What happens if all the stores that sell food to the public decide to ban firearms? Does the property owner's Right which restricting one's access to the modern day food source still trump the 2nd amendment? In this situation it seems like the person who carries a gun must choose to relinquish their 2nd amendment Rights in order to continue to live (assuming they can't hunt or grow a large enough garden where they live).

A number of stores ( Giant Food in the Washington D.C. area for example) now offer delivery service. Or you can contract a personal shopper. The only thing stopping you from acquiring the food is you. You have the choice to disarm, pay someone else to shop for you, or starve.

I think whomever it is that pays the property taxes or the rent to keep an establishment open so that I may purchase goods from them instead of having to spend my time and money searching elsewhere owes me precisely nothing. They can make any rules they want and I can agree to them, or I can take my money elsewhere. I have yet to find a store in my area that stocks anything I use that I can't get elsewhere.

The customer pays for all the bills and the business profit on top of that.

"I may not agree with a single thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I don't know the author....
It's their store and I don't have to go in..

Voltaire. French guy believe it or not!

And yes I support their right to post their signs. Rights are rights, and thus non negotiable. They are not given by the government, Constitution or Bill of Rights. Those entities and items are there to protect the "God given rights" Or whichever entity you believe entitled us to them.

Everyone is free to exercise or not exercise their Rights as they see fit.

Whatever one person can legally do any other person can also legally do.

Whatever is illegal for one person to do is also illegal for any other person to do.

While we are at it, let's also say for the sake of the argument that one's Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Keeping the above in mind, I have a few questions.

If you limit where one can go while bearing arms, isn't that an infringement?

Isn't telling someone that they must first disarm before proceeding any further an infringement on what that person can do while bearing arms?

By saying that an unarmed person can do something that an armed person can't isn't that the same thing as saying that these two people are now no longer considered equal under the law because one person has chosen to exercise one of their Rights and one person has chosen not to exercise that same Right?

Isn't writing laws that restrict what people can do while exercising their Right to bear arms an infringement?

Isn't writing laws that only pertain to people who exercise their Right to bear arms a way of making these people not equal to other people under the law?

If everyone is equal under the law and it is illegal for someone who bears arms to go someplace, shouldn't it also be illegal for someone who isn't bearing arms to go to that same place at the same time?

I have read your post and most everything you say - within the scope of this topic - is correct. And the logic is correct; however, it applies only to public property. So, take what you said, apply it to public property and you got it. Private property is just that – private.

Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy

Isn't writing laws that restrict what people can do while exercising their Right to bear arms an infringement?

SCOTUS doesn’t think so. Are you sure you do? If you do, then you must believe anyone at any age would be able to own and carry a firearm. Do you support that? Also, what are arms in the amendment? Do they include destructive devices?